Intentional Torts: A Comprehensive Legal Guide

Posted on Apr 29, 2024 in Law & Jurisprudence

Analytic Structure of Intentional Torts

Prima Facie Case

  1. Act: Two-prong intentionality:
    1. Desire to cause the consequences of the act, OR
    2. Belief that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
  2. Duty/Breach: Duty not to injure or damage. Consider the interest protected by the tort.
  3. Causation:
    1. Actual cause
    2. Proximate (legal) cause
  4. Damages: Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence (51%).

Consent or Privilege

Consider cases such as Weaver v. Ward, Brown v. Kendall, and Cohen v. Petty to determine if consent or privilege applies.

Intent

Definition

Conduct is intentional if the actor:

  1. Desires to cause the consequences of their act, OR
  2. Believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

Relevant cases include:

  • Garratt v. Dailey: Establishes the rule of law and the possibility of children being liable for intentional torts.
  • Spivey v. Battaglia: Clarifies the requirement of substantial certainty for intentional torts.
  • Ranson v. Kitner: Demonstrates that mistake does not negate intent.
  • McGuire v. Almy: Addresses the liability of insane persons and caretakers, and the impact of voluntary intoxication on intent.

Transferred Intent

Talmage v. Smith illustrates the concept of transferred intent, where intent for one intentional tort automatically applies to others, and intent can transfer from the intended victim to an unintended victim.

Intentional Torts

All five intentional torts discussed below can result in at least nominal damages, with actual damages awarded if harm is proven.

Battery

  • Intentional touching that causes harm, any physical effect, or offense.
  • Offensiveness is judged based on a reasonable person standard, considering context.
  • Examples include direct contact, indirect contact (e.g., throwing objects), and causing harmful substances to come into contact with the plaintiff.
  • Protects personal dignity, security, and autonomy.
  • Damages can be presumed (nominal) or actual, requiring substantial certainty of harm.
  • Relevant cases:
    • Cole v. Turner: Defines the elements of battery.
    • Wallace v. Rosen: Emphasizes the importance of context in determining offensiveness.
    • Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel: Clarifies that “person” includes objects closely associated with the body.
    • Lambertson v. United States: Distinguishes between intentional and negligent touching.

Assault

  • Placing someone in apprehension of an imminent battery.
  • Fear is not required, but the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm.
  • The defendant must have the apparent ability to carry out the threat, but actual ability is not necessary.
  • Future threats do not constitute assault.
  • Relevant cases:
    • I de S v. W de S: Defines the elements of assault.
    • Western Union v. Hill: Highlights the requirement of imminence and apparent ability.

False Imprisonment

  • Intentional act that confines the plaintiff within boundaries set by the defendant.
  • The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it.
  • Confinement can be achieved through physical barriers, threats of force, or invalid use of legal authority.
  • Relevant cases:
    • Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman: Outlines the elements of false imprisonment and the concept of privilege as a defense.
    • Parvi v. City of Kingston: Discusses the requirement of awareness of confinement and the insufficiency of certain types of arrest.
    • Hardy v. LaBelle’s: Clarifies that confinement can occur even within a large area.
    • Enright v. Groves: Explains confinement by “color of legal authority” and the concept of false arrest.
    • Whittaker v. Sanford: Emphasizes the need for physical restraint and the affirmative duty to ensure escape is possible.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

  • Intentional or reckless conduct that causes severe emotional distress.
  • Factors considered include power imbalances, public humiliation, and the plaintiff’s known sensitivities.
  • Causation between the conduct and the distress is crucial.
  • Relevant cases:
    • State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff: Establishes the requirement of extreme and outrageous conduct and foreseeable severe emotional distress.
    • Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida: Defines the standard for extreme and outrageous conduct and the consideration of the plaintiff’s sensitivities.
    • Harris v. Jones: Outlines the elements of IIED and the potential need for expert witness testimony.
    • Taylor v. Vallelunga: Clarifies the requirement of intent to cause emotional distress and the limitations on recovery for harm to loved ones.

Trespass to Land

  • Intentional entry onto another’s land without consent or privilege.
  • Mistake does not negate intent (Dougherty v. Stepp).
  • Invasion must be by a tangible object (Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.).
  • Protects the right to exclusive possession and control of land.
  • Relevant cases:
    • Herrin v. Sutherland: Discusses the extent of airspace considered part of the land and the limitations on air travel as trespass.
    • Rogers v. Board of Road Com’rs for Kent County: Explains trespass by remaining on land after consent or privilege has been revoked.

Trespass to Chattels

  • Intentional interference with another’s right to possess and control personal property.
  • Requires actual damages, such as impairment of value or deprivation of use for a substantial period (Glidden v. Szybiak).
  • CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. demonstrates the application of trespass to chattels in the context of digital property.

Conversion

  • Extreme form of trespass to chattels, where the interference is so serious that the defendant must pay the full value of the chattel.
  • Factors considered include the intent and duration of control, good faith, harm to the chattel, and inconvenience caused to the plaintiff.

Privileges

Consent

  • Consent can be express or implied through outward manifestations (O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.).
  • Consent to participate in an activity does not imply consent to intentional harm outside the rules (Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.).
  • Consent for medical procedures must be informed and specific (Mohr v. Williams).
  • Misrepresentation about the defendant’s identity or the nature of the act can invalidate consent (De May v. Roberts).

Self-Defense

  • Privilege to use reasonable force to defend against a threatened battery.
  • Requires a reasonable belief of imminent harm, even if mistaken.
  • The amount of force must be proportionate to the threat.
  • Retreat may be required in some circumstances.

Defense of Others

  • Privilege to use reasonable force to defend others who would have the right to use self-defense.
  • The reasonableness of the belief that intervention is necessary is considered.

Defense of Property

  • Privilege to use reasonable force to defend property against intruders.
  • Deadly force is generally not permitted unless the intruder poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm (Katko v. Briney).
  • Notice of potential harm may be required in some jurisdictions.

Recovery of Property

  • Privilege to use reasonable force to reclaim property that has been wrongfully taken.
  • Requires immediate pursuit and a demand for return before using force (Hodgeden v. Hubbard).
  • Shopkeeper’s privilege allows for reasonable detention of suspected shoplifters (Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Dept. Store).

Necessity

  • Privilege to use another’s property to avoid harm in emergency situations.
  • Public necessity allows for actions to protect the public good, even if it causes damage to private property (Surocco v. Geary).
  • Private necessity allows for actions to protect oneself or one’s property, but compensation may be required (Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.).

Arrest

  • Law enforcement officers and, in some cases, private citizens have the privilege to arrest individuals under certain circumstances.
  • Arrests can be made with or without a warrant, depending on the situation and the severity of the offense.
  • Excessive force is not permitted.

Discipline

  • Parents, teachers, and certain other individuals have the privilege to use reasonable force to discipline children under their care.
  • The amount of force must be proportionate to the offense and the child’s age and condition.

Justification

  • A broad privilege that allows for actions that would otherwise be tortious if they are necessary to prevent harm or protect property (Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority).